It's not enough to merely dismiss these cases: the lawyers who file them should be whacked with massive fines and sanctions

/

Brendan Ballou, Esq. “Go ahead, smack my smug face.”

Woman Sues to Stop UFC Freedom 250 Event, Claiming ‘Aesthetic Injury’ to Her Eyeballs

President Donald Trump is being sued for everything he tries to build or renovate: the ballroom, the Reflecting Pool, the arch, and now the UFC Freedom 250 match that's set to take place on the South Lawn of the White House. Reportedly, a 69-year-old woman named Susan F. Douglas is suing to stop the event, her attorney saying in a court filing that "the erection of the Claw and other structures for UFC Freedom 250 is causing and will continue to cause Douglas aesthetic injury by diminishing the personal enjoyment, experience of beauty, and feelings of national pride she previously experienced while observing the White House." Or, you know, she could just not watch.

It’s not as though these claimants and their lawyers thought they had any legitimate, sustainable case supported by even the widest stretching of the law; they filed this last-minute suit solely to harass and delay “The Orange Man”. So this is no surprise, but there should have been more:

Obama judge rules on effort to block America 250 events at WH and Lincoln Memorial

Judge Amit Mehta found the plaintiffs' aesthetic and emotional injuries insufficient under Article III

A federal judge on Friday cleared the way for UFC Freedom 250 to proceed at the White House and Lincoln Memorial this weekend, rejecting a last-minute court challenge just days before the high-profile event.

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, an Obama appointee, denied an emergency request by two Washington-area residents to halt the mixed martial arts showdown, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue in the first place and had not demonstrated a sufficient injury.

The lawsuit challenged plans for "UFC Freedom 250," a mixed martial arts event tied to celebrations surrounding the nation’s 250th anniversary. The event includes a June 12 news conference and fighter face-offs at the Lincoln Memorial and a June 14 fight card on the White House South Lawn. It is expected to bring thousands of viewers.

…. Mehta did not decide whether any of those claims were legally valid. Instead, he determined that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were largely aesthetic and emotional in nature and did not demonstrate the kind of concrete, personal harm required under Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs had described the massive UFC staging structure known as "The Claw" as visually offensive and argued that the "unauthorized, commercial exploitation of the national monuments caused harm."

Mehta rejected this notion, writing that "general emotional harm, no matter how deeply felt, cannot suffice for injury-in-fact for standing purposes."

Citing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, Mehta wrote that a threatened injury must be "certainly impending" to qualify as an injury in fact. He found that one plaintiff's assertions that he might encounter the event while driving for work were too speculative, while the other plaintiff's plans to attend protests near the sites did not fit within traditional aesthetic-injury cases.

"[W]e can find nothing in the existing to case law to suggest that a person who incidentally views something unpleasant has suffered an injury-in-fact for purposes of standing," Mehta ruled.

The ruling noted that President Donald Trump publicly proposed hosting a UFC event at the White House in 2025 and that preparations had been visible for weeks before the lawsuit was filed. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs waited until days before the event to seek emergency relief despite longstanding public knowledge that the event was planned.

Mehta also emphasized the temporary nature of the disputed structures and activities. Construction associated with the event is scheduled to be dismantled shortly after the fight card concludes.

The opinion cited nearly a year of planning, extensive coordination among federal agencies, the involvement of hundreds of workers and contractors, and an estimated $60 million investment by UFC and affiliated organizations.

The ruling also referenced the expected attendance of thousands of spectators and the anticipated remote audience of millions.